Beyond PPN 002: From Standard Reporting Metrics to Where…?

PPN 002 and Social Value Model Explainer series

One of the new elements introduced in the PPN 002 Social Value Model is the idea of “Standard Reporting Metrics” (SRMs) – that is, officially mandated ways in which certain types of social value should be measured and reported. 

NB This article predates the publication of PPN 026 in August 2026 which will supercede PPN 002 from January 2027.

For example, SRMs 1ai states that new jobs creation must be measured in terms of roles, not Full Time Equivalents (FTEQs) or any other metric used previously. 

And in its June 2025 consultation on further public procurement reform, the Cabinet Office his looking at the possibility of:

“Requiring contracting authorities to use standard social value criteria and metrics selected from a streamlined list (to be co-designed with the public sector and suppliers)”

Does this signal a narrowing of the scope of social value to a single list of approved options? Are contracting authorities and suppliers looking at less freedom to respond to the specific needs of local communities?

There are two reasons why the switch from PPN06/20 to PPN 002 is not as dramatic as it may at first glance appear in respect of metrics:

1. PPN06/20’s Reporting Metrics Were More Than Just Suggestions

The new Model includes 33 SRMs, but the original version also included 52 Reporting Metrics. 

Although their language around their use was less firm, it was (and for contracts governed by PPN06/20,still is) intended that the metrics specified should be used wherever possible. The Guide to PPN06/20 says:

“In-scope organisations must use the standardised Reporting Metrics in the Model, where relevant and proportionate to the subject matter of the contract, to ensure consistency and accuracy of reporting”

That’s not very different from the 2025 Guide, which says:

“For each policy outcome the model includes a list of standard reporting metrics the intent is to standardise the way that frequently offered types of social value are measured, so that suppliers do not have to measure the same type of social value in many different ways.”

In both cases, what the government is saying is: if and when social value relates to these kinds of activity and/or deliverable, measure and report it in these ways.

But if you’re looking at a different kind of social value, you still have flexibility. 

2. Authorities and Suppliers Can Agree Other Metrics

The key statement here is in the Guide to the SVM:

“Where the deliverable is not listed in the model list of SRMs or it is not appropriate or proportionate to use one of the SRMs, the authority should agree an appropriate metric with the supplier. Only where there is not a suitable SRM,  consideration should be made of any sector-wide measurement of the deliverable, aligning to existing metrics used by the supplier for economies of scale where appropriate.”

Would the “streamlined” set of indicators proposed in the consultation restrict that flexibility. Not necessarily. The consultation document says:

“Contracting authorities would be able to apply additional criteria and metrics to meet local priorities if these were not covered by the standard set.”

This is important, because a lot of the SRMs talk solely about the “number of hours” spent or the “number of activities delivered” without reference to quality or local needs. 

SRMs Are About Intra-Government Reporting

So why introduce SRMs? The guidance suggests that the answer lies in cross-governmental reporting. That is, the Cabinet Office – in supervising and checking other departments’ activities – wants a single, consistent set of numbers:

“At the time of publication, central government departments report to the Cabinet Office any commitments that are listed in the standard reporting metrics.

“Standard reporting metrics are the means by which we record and monitor the supplier’s commitments under the contract.”

How Do SRMs Affect Social Value Frameworks?

It should be clear from the above that alternative metrics that are closely derived from and calculated or monetised on a comparable basis to SRMs are not only permissible, but actually really valuable: 

• Additional metrics can help fill out the quality and need gaps left out of the SRM wording, while proxy value calculations (where appropriate) can help drive innovation and impact by encouraging alternative ways of addressing social demands
• The Impact Evaluation Standard was built directly out of the Social Value Model, with all of its metrics aligned from the ground up with its approach to social value
• The Impact Evaluation Standard is updated in full every year, so as to reflect best practice and the latest developments in welfare economics. Most recently, it was updated in April 2025
• Work is well underway on retooling the Impact Evaluation Standard for PPN 002. Revised metrics, incorporating and taking account of the SRMs and new priorities (eg reducing domestic violence), will be available soon – before the October 1 deadline for implementing PPN 002 in place of PPN06/20. Follow us on LinkedIn to make sure you don’t miss out on any Impact Evaluation Standard updates!

In Fact, Will We See More Social Value Flexibility…?

We hope that’s given you plenty of reassurance around SRMs and what they mean for your organisation. But before we go, there’s one other thing in the current consultation that could – in fact – increase choice around social value. 

As well as the streamlined metrics, the government is looking into:

“Allowing contracting authorities to specify the area in which the social value is to be delivered by choosing between the location of a contracting authority’s area of responsibility, the location where the contract will be performed, or the location where the supplier is based.”

This is potentially a significant change for central government bodies, which would be permitted to design social value requirements in tenders in such a way as to meet the most pressing needs – rather than being confined to the location of the contracting authority in order to comply with the “must relate to the subject-matter of the contract” criterion.